↓ Skip to main content

Enhancing medical students’ reflectivity in mentoring groups for professional development – a qualitative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Enhancing medical students’ reflectivity in mentoring groups for professional development – a qualitative analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0951-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriele Lutz, Nina Pankoke, Hadass Goldblatt, Marzellus Hofmann, Michaela Zupanic

Abstract

Professional competence is important in delivering high quality patient care, and it can be enhanced by reflection and reflective discourse e.g. in mentoring groups. However, students are often reluctant though to engage in this discourse. A group mentoring program involving all preclinical students as well as faculty members and co-mentoring clinical students was initiated at Witten-Herdecke University. This study explores both the attitudes of those students towards such a program and factors that might hinder or enhance how students engage in reflective discourse. A qualitative design was applied using semi-structured focus group interviews with preclinical students and semi-structured individual interviews with mentors and co-mentors. The interview data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Students' attitudes towards reflective discourse on professional challenges were diverse. Some students valued the new program and named positive outcomes regarding several features of professional development. Enriching experiences were described. Others expressed aversive attitudes. Three reasons for these were given: unclear goals and benefits, interpersonal problems within the groups hindering development and intrapersonal issues such as insecurity and traditional views of medical education. Participants mentioned several program setup factors that could enhance how students engage in such groups: explaining the program thoroughly, setting expectations and integrating the reflective discourse in a meaningful way into the curriculum, obliging participation without coercion, developing a sense of security, trust and interest in each other within the groups, randomizing group composition and facilitating group moderators as positive peer and faculty role models and as learning group members. A well-designed and empathetic setup of group mentoring programs can help raise openness towards engaging in meaningful reflective discourse. Reflection on and communication of professional challenges can, in turn, improve professional development, which is essential for high quality patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Researcher 10 7%
Librarian 8 5%
Other 37 25%
Unknown 41 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 21%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Psychology 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 47 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,237,058
of 23,936,264 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,845
of 3,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,270
of 315,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#25
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,936,264 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.